Connect with us

Alternative News

Did You Notice The Blue Ribbons & Other Political Stunts At The Oscars?

Published

on

I love watching movies and, although I’m not really into award shows or the whole “Hollywood scene,” I decided to watch the Oscars last night. To my dismay, I found that it was less about the movies and more about American politics.

advertisement - learn more

Everyone seems to love bashing Trump, so much so that you cannot turn on your television or listen to your radio anymore without being bombarded by propaganda. Don’t get me wrong — I do not support Trump. In fact, I don’t support either side, since both the right wing and the left wing are ultimately a part of the same bird, as the saying goes. I’ve simply noticed a trend lately amongst mainstream media and the public in general, which is that there’s no escape from U.S. politics, and to me this was evident at the Oscars.

Oscars Acceptance Speeches That Turned Political

If you watched the Oscars this year, you can probably think of numerous examples of propaganda during the show. Let’s start with some of the quotes from the infamous host, Jimmy Kimmel. One of the first things he said was that CNN, the BBC, the New York Times, the L.A. Times, “and any other ‘Times,’ for that matter” weren’t invited to the Oscars; a clear dig at Trump’s decision to block several mainstream media outlets from attending the White House briefing.

“This broadcast is being watched live by millions of Americans and around the world in more than 225 countries that now hate us,” he said.

“If every one of you took a minute to reach out to one person you disagree with and have a positive, considerate conversation — not as liberals or conservatives but as Americans — if we all did that it would make America great again. It starts with us,” said Kimmel.

Kimmel makes a great point: We shouldn’t be arguing over which side is correct, but rather coming together as equals. And this doesn’t just apply to Americans; we are all a part of a global community and we all feed the collective quantum field.

advertisement - learn more

“I mean, remember last year,” continued Kimmel, “when it seemed like the Oscars were racist?” Kimmel was referring to the controversial Oscars award show last year, as the hashtag #OscarsSoWhite went viral after absolutely no actors of colour were nominated, and for the second year in a row. The blame was probably in part due to prejudices, but the Academy isn’t entirely to blame. During this century, minority actors have only secured 15% of the top roles, so there really isn’t a wide variety of leading actors of colour to nominate.

Let’s not forget how the Oscars work. We don’t vote for our favourite films and actors — the 6,028 Academy Award members do. At the time, 94% of the voters were white, predominantly men, and were an average of 63 years old. It’s not hard to imagine how prejudices could manipulate the votes.

It wasn’t just Jimmy Kimmel who used his position as an opportunity to discuss politics. An overwhelming amount of people used their speeches to share their opinions, too. Although I questioned some of their motives, I do think it’s incredible that people are using their star power to try to create change and voice their opinions! However, whether that’s positive change or what their motives were, who knows.

The Best Documentary was awarded to Ezra Edelman for O. J. Simpson: Made in America, which to me was fairly shocking because it was up against some incredible documentaries, including 13th, which I wrote a CE article about last year. Edelman dedicated his award to victims of police brutality and racially motivated violence, which was a beautiful tribute, as this is a severely overlooked issue.

The presenter for Best Animated Feature Film, Gael García Bernal, voiced that he was “against any form of wall that wants to separate us.” Again, this is another beautiful declaration of equality, but a clear reference to Trump.

The winner of The White Helmets, a documentary about the Syrian conflict, even read a quote from the Koran. This award was extremely questionable, as the White Helmets have a fairly controversial reputation. The organization has received $100 million worth of funding by the U.S., the U.K., Europe, and other states.

They claim to be saving civilians in Eastern Aleppo and Idlib, yet no one over there has heard of them. They also claim to be neutral, yet they’ve been photographed carrying guns and standing around the dead bodies of Syrian soldiers. You can watch Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett further discuss the White Helmets at a United Nations talk here (starting around 15 minutes into the video).

“Through the White Helmets we are seeing the eradication of Syrian state institutions and the implanting of a Syrian shadow state by predominantly the UK, the US and supported by EU governments,” explains Vanessa Beeley, independent researcher and journalist. Yet, for some reason, the Academy deemed this organization worthy of receiving an award for their documentary.

Italian-born Alessandro Bertolazzi dedicated his makeup award for Suicide Squad to “all the immigrants.” And in what she referred to as “a small sign of solidarity,” director Ava DuVernay declared that she was wearing a gown by a designer from a majority Muslim country.

This year marked the first year in Oscar history where six black actors were nominated for awards, a record for the Academy. Viola Davis won Best Supporting Actress for her role in Fences and a Muslim man won Best Supporting Actor (Mahershala Ali, for Moonlight). Perhaps the most shocking move was when the Iranian director Asghar Farhadi, whose The Salesman was awarded Best Foreign-Language Film, boycotted the entire ceremony, refusing to attend in protest of Trump’s ban on Muslim travellers.

Someone read his acceptance speech, however, which was essentially a long-winded political statement: “Dividing the world into the ‘us’ and ‘our enemies’ categories creates fears. A deceitful justification for aggression and war. These wars prevent democracy and human rights in countries which have themselves been victims of aggression.”

These wars are largely the result of previous presidents funding them, yet no one spoke out about them in past award ceremonies. And no one mentioned the role the Obama administration played in funding ISIS and the Syrian war; it was just people addressing racist quotes and proposed policies from Trump. While I am thrilled that celebrities are using their fame to make a difference, at this point in the show, I started questioning whether or not the Academy was choosing the best films or the best opportunities to deliver political speeches.

Even the conclusion of the Oscars reminded me of the U.S. election. If you didn’t watch the awards show, it ended with La La Land being accidentally presented with the most significant award of the night for Best Picture. As it turned out, Moonlight had actually won, so during their acceptance speeches, the producer grabbed the microphone and explained the mix-up.

This strangely reminded me of the U.S. election. Everyone was so confident that Hillary Clinton would win, given her strong ties to the elite and the White House; however, Trump surprised all of us and is now the President of the United States. La La Land was presumed to win this award, actually accepted it, and then it was taken away from them. Could this have been pre-planned by the Academy as a symbol of the recent U.S. election results? It might be a stretch, but at this point, who knows?

So, What About Those Blue Ribbons? 

You may have noticed numerous celebrities sporting blue ribbons on their dresses and suits. The blue ribbons represent the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a non-profit organization whose chief aim is “to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

Nominees, presenters, musicians, and guests at the Oscars were allegedly encouraged to wear the ribbon to stand in solidarity for equal rights and civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Although this is an incredible statement, I question whether this was simply another political stunt encouraged by the elite.

Although ACLU seems like a well-intended non-profit, I can’t help but question their motives, especially given their ties to elitist George Soros, a key member of the shadow government disguised as a philanthropic billionaire.

Ever since ACLU started filing lawsuits against Trump’s executive orders, the non-profit has received a massive tidal wave in contributions. According to the Washington Post, the lawsuits filed by the ACLU caused their amount of donations to skyrocket, totalling over $24 million in one weekend, which is approximately six times the organization’s average annual donations. This is not to say that I support Trump’s drastic decisions, since I am a staunch advocate for equality and democracy. However, the U.S. has not been living democratically for quite some time, and this is starting to raise some real red flags.

Many of the ACLU’s lawsuits were directly funded by George Soros and Democratic state attorneys general. Soros’s Open Society Institute has donated over $35 million to the ACLU alone and millions more to other liberal organizations willing to file lawsuits against the Trump administration’s policies. This seems like a well-intended philanthropic move, but if you know anything about George Soros, it’s safe to assume that his donations are strategic political moves to inspire chaos so he can profit from the wreckage.

Soros is well-known for his ties to the Ukrainian conflict and for creating and funding the Black Lives Matter and Women’s March movements. These movements appear to be rooted in equality but then they instil fear and manipulate us into fighting against each other, creating even more separation and division. In my opinion, this same trend was starting to play out at the Oscars.

People are so obsessed with taking a side: left or right, conservative or liberal, Democratic or Republican, and then we allow this to divide us even further. We forget that, regardless of our opinions, we are still all fundamentally connected to one another. All of this separatism is an illusion, and the more we play into that, even if you think you’re fighting for “the right side,” the more divided we become.

What Can We Learn From This Year’s Oscars? 

Although the Oscars were probably once about the films, I think that it’s transitioned into something much bigger and broader. Now, it’s more so about the fashion, symbolism, pop culture, celebrities, speeches, and, apparently, politics.

I think that these awards shows in general should be more about art than anything else. The beauty in art is that it connects us all, regardless of our political opinions, race, etc. These events could serve as a platform for us to all come together and celebrate the beauty in expression and human creativity. I believe art should be shared and celebrated, not manipulated and used for a political agenda.

I do believe that there was still a lot of light that shined through the award show. Clearly many individuals are passionate about equality and creating positive change and felt the need to speak out about it, which is beautiful! In a way, this was a testament to how much people want equality. Let’s just hope that society’s newfound passion for equality doesn’t turn into another form of division by creating another radical, one-sided party.

Free David Wilcock Screening: Disclosure & The Fall of the Cabal

We interviewed David about what is happening within the cabal and disclosure. He shared some incredible insight that is insanely relevant to today.

So far, the response to this interview has been off the charts as people are calling it the most concise update of what's happening in our world today.

Watch the interview here.
Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Media Misses Key Detail On Recent Trump GMO/Pesticide Ban ‘Lifting’, Here’s Why

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Trump's administration recently released a memo cancelling a 2014 Obama-era memo about GMOs and neonicotinoid pesticide use. The media covered this story as a 'lifting of a ban' on GMOs, yet that's not what either memo says.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are we still leaving the door open for GMO and pesticide use in both administrations? Why is the media, across the whole board here, using any story possible to put people against the current administration? Has the deep state lost control?

In early August, Trump’s administration released a new memo from the Fish and Wildlife Service stating that the 2014 version of the memo, out of Obama’s administration would be cancelled and the terms of the new memo would now be in place.

The memo was in reference to a GMO and neonicotinoid bans that put in place to help protect the bee population and wildlife refuges. The 2014 memo was a positive step forward as it was publicly stating, even at higher governmental levels, that GMOs were harmful to agriculture and wildlife, as were neonics. This initial memo was coined a GMO and neonics ban, even though the language in the memo doesn’t actually say that.

Before we continue, we recognize and have painstakingly covered, the dangers of neonicotinoid pesticides and GMOs on our environment and wildlife. We have called for an all-out ban, based on our research, numerous times over the last 6 years and still hold completely strong to that truth.

What is discussed in both of these memos in regards to how to go about using pesticides and GMOs are NOT safe for our environment and wildlife. The fact that both administrations are leaving the door open for use is not in humanities best interest.

The 2014 Memo

Specifically, the 2014 Obama-era memo states that when it comes to both GMOs and neonicotinoid pesticides, they can be used on a case by case basis when refuge managers request such and the case is brought through the proper channels of approval.

Below is a piece of that memo, which can also be viewed here, referring to the requested use of neonics.

advertisement - learn more

2014 memo referring to neonic pesticides.

When it came to the subject of GMOs in the 2014 memo, Obama’s administration made their stance very clear as well:

2014 memo referring to GMO use.

In both cases, we see that it was never an all-out ban, but simply an open door where neonicotinoid pesticide use and GMO use to be requested and reviewed on a case by case basis.

Now let’s have a look at the 2018 memos that resulted in media coverage alluding to a ‘lifting of the GMO and neonic ban’ put in place by the Obama administration.

“The Trump administration has rescinded an Obama-era ban on the use of pesticides linked to declining bee populations and the cultivation of genetically modified crops in dozens of national wildlife refuges where farming is permitted.” Reuters

The 2018 Memo

When referring to GMOs, the 2018 memo states:

And when speaking about neonicotinoid pesticides the 2018 memo states:

As you can see once again in both cases, the language is the same. There was never an all-out ban in place, and all uses will be based on approval on a case by case basis.

What Media Coverage In This Way?

When we initially printed this story, we only had access to the 2018 memo that was recently released. Based on widespread media coverage and the memo itself, it appeared as though this was, in fact, a lifting of the ban. But once we got our hands on the 2014 memo from the Obama admin, it became clear this was the same language, and that the media was now weaponizing this story against Trump’s administration.

You may follow CE’s work a lot, or you may be new to it, we are politically neutral and do not side with political parties in any way. We report on what ACTUALLY happens, not a slanted angle based on a political agenda. In that perspective, we are not attached to events but can instead see how they play into a big picture.

With that said, why did the media cover this story in a manner that was so damning to the Trump administration?

We have been reporting on the fact that from our observation, experience, and analysis, as well as our conversations with contacts we have connected to the intelligence communities, we feel that Trump has come into this space as an outsider to the specific cabal/deep state group that has been in control for many many decades. This was the cabal group that would have put Hillary in place if there wasn’t a divide taking place in the intelligence community that had the plan flipped. You can learn about that in detail here.

Leading up to the election, and since he has been POTUS, Trump has been all out attacked by every single news station, with the exception of FOX, in a big way – an unprecedented happenstance. Since we know that only 5 corporations own all of the US media, and these 5 corporations are tied to powerful elite within the deep state, it would begin to seem like a war on an outsider more than anything else. Again, a detail we have covered in depth over the last 2 years as many examples of this have surfaced.

Below is a video that dives into this story and the deep state involvement in more detail, but the thing to note here is, we must step beyond identity politics and siding with a political party in general if we want to see the truth of our world and begin to change it. This is the illusion being set forth to divide us and keep us from unifying under a deep understanding. Before we react to and believe much of what is coming out of the mainstream media today, we must recognize this deeper war taking place here and dig deeper to find the truth.

Free David Wilcock Screening: Disclosure & The Fall of the Cabal

We interviewed David about what is happening within the cabal and disclosure. He shared some incredible insight that is insanely relevant to today.

So far, the response to this interview has been off the charts as people are calling it the most concise update of what's happening in our world today.

Watch the interview here.
Continue Reading

Alternative News

World’s Largest Study On Cell Tower Radiation Confirms Cancer Link

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A groundbreaking study shows the strong connection between Cell Phone towers and cancer. It's one of many showing how electromagnetic radiation is harming human health at an exponential rate, and another example of industry trumps science.

  • Reflect On:

    There are thousands of scientists creating awareness about this, but the industry has become so powerful that they can do whatever they want. How are they allowed to continue when we have definitive proof of harmful health effects? What's going on?

Scientists call on the World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer to re-evaluate the carcinogenicity of cell phone radiation after the Ramazzini Institute and US government studies report finding the same unusual cancers.

I am posting this article with the permission of Environmental Health Trust and can be found online at ehtrust.org.

(Washington, DC) – Researchers with the renowned Ramazzini Institute (RI) in Italy announced that a large-scale lifetime study of lab animals exposed to environmental levels of cell tower radiation developed cancer. A $25 million study of much higher levels of cell phone radiofrequency (RF) radiation, from the US National Toxicology Program (NTP), has also reported finding the same unusual cancer called Schwannoma of the heart in male rats treated at the highest dose. In addition, the RI study of cell tower radiation also found increases in malignant brain (glial) tumors in female rats and precancerous conditions including Schwann cells hyperplasia in both male and female rats.

The study findings are making headline news. Read the Corriere Di Bologna article “Cellulari, a study by Ramazzini: “They cause very rare tumours.

“Our findings of cancerous tumours in rats exposed to environmental levels of RF are consistent with and reinforce the results of the US NTP studies on cell phone radiation, as both reported increases in the same types of tumours of the brain and heart in Sprague-Dawley rats. Together, these studies provide sufficient evidence to call for the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to re-evaluate and re-classify their conclusions regarding the carcinogenic potential of RFR in humans,” said Fiorella Belpoggi Ph.D., study author and RI Director of Research.

The Ramazzini study exposed 2448 Sprague-Dawley rats from prenatal life until their natural death to “environmental” cell tower radiation for 19 hours per day (1.8 GHz GSM radiofrequency radiation (RFR) of 5, 25 and 50 V/m). RI exposures mimicked base station emissions like those from cell tower antennas, and exposure levels were far less than those used in the NTP studies of cell phone radiation.

advertisement - learn more

“All of the exposures used in the Ramazzini study were below the US FCC limits. These are permissible exposures according to the FCC. In other words, a person can legally be exposed to this level of radiation. Yet cancers occurred in these animals at these legally permitted levels. The Ramazzini findings are consistent with the NTP study demonstrating these effects are a reproducible finding,” explained Ronald Melnick Ph.D., formerly the Senior NIH toxicologist who led the design of the NTP study on cell phone radiation now a Senior Science Advisor to Environmental Health Trust (EHT). “Governments need to strengthen regulations to protect the public from these harmful non-thermal exposures.”

“This important article from one of the most acclaimed institutions of its kind in the world provides a major new addition to the technical literature indicating strong reasons for concern about electromagnetic radiation from base stations or cell towers,” stated Editor in Chief of Environmental Research Jose Domingo PhD, Professor of Toxicology, School of Medicine at Reus University, Catalonia, Spain.

“The US NTP results combined now with the Ramazzini study, reinforce human studies from our team and others providing clear evidence that RF radiation causes acoustic neuromaa (vestibular schwannoma) and gliomas, and should be classified carcinogenic to humans,” stated Lennart Hardell MD, PhD, physician-epidemiologist with the Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden, who has published extensively on environmental causes of cancer including Agent Orange, pesticides and cell phone radiofrequency radiation.

“The evidence indicating wireless is carcinogenic has increased and can no longer be ignored,” stated University of Toronto Dalla Lana School of Public Health Professor Emeritus Anthony B. Miller MD, Member of the Royal Colleges of Physicians of Canada and the UK, and Senior Medical Advisor to EHT who is also a long-term advisor to the World Health Organization.

“This study raises concerns that simply living close to a cell tower will pose threats to human health. Governments need to take measures to reduce exposures from cell tower emissions. Cell towers should not be near schools, hospitals or people’s homes. Public health agencies need to educate the public on how to reduce exposure from all sources of wireless radiofrequency radiation—be it from cell towers or cell phones or Wi-Fi in schools,” stated David O. Carpenter MD, former Dean of the School of Public Health at the University at Albany. “This is particularly urgent because of current plans to place small 5G cell towers about every 300 meters in every street across the country. These 5G ‘small cell’ antennas will result in continuous exposure to everyone living nearby and everyone walking down the street. The increased exposures will increase risk of cancer and other diseases such as electro-hypersensitivity.”

You can listen to the full press conference below:

Ramazzini Institute investigators have completed nearly 500 cancer bioassays on more than 200 compounds, and their study design is unique in that animals are allowed to live until their natural deaths in order to allow detection of late-developing tumors. Eighty percent of all human cancers are late-developing, occurring in humans after 60 years of age. This longer observation period has allowed the RI to detect such later-occurring tumors for a number of chemicals, and their published research includes studies of benzenexylenesmancozebformaldehyde and vinyl chloride.

The Ramazzini research results come in the wake of similar findings from the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) large-scale experimental studies on cell phone radiation. Both studies found statistically significant increases in the development of the same type of very rare and highly malignant tumor in the heart of male rats—schwannomas.

“This publication is a serious cause for concern,” stated Annie J. Sasco MD, DrPH, SM, MPH, retired Director of Research at the INSERM (French NIH) and former Unit Chief at the International Agency for Research on Cancer/World Health Organization, France, who commented that, “some of the results are not statistically significant due to the relatively small number of animals involved. Yet, that does not mean they should be ignored. Larger studies could turn out statistically significant results and in any event statistical significance is just one aspect of the evaluation of the relation between exposure and disease. Biological significance and concordance of results between humans and animals clearly reinforces the strength of the evidence of carcinogenicity. The facts that both experimental studies found the same types of rare tumours, which also have pertinence to the human clinical picture, is striking,”

“Such findings of effects at very low levels are not unexpected,” stated Devra Davis Ph.D., MPH, president of EHT, pointing to a Jacobs University replication animal study published in 2015 that also found very low levels of RFR promoted tumour growth. “This study confirms an ever-growing literature and provides a wake-up call to governments to enact protective policy to limit exposures to the public and to the private sector to make safe radiation-free technology available.”

In January 2017 at an international conference co-sponsored by Environmental Health Trust and the Israel Institute for Advanced Study at Hebrew University, Fiorella Belpoggi PhD, Director of Research at the Ramazzini Institute, presented the study design and the findings that RFR-exposed animals had significantly lower litter weights. Belpoggi’s presentation and slides are available online. The Ramazzini findings of lower litter weights are consistent with the NTP study, which also found lower litter weights in prenatally exposed animals. At that time, the  Italian journal Corriere published an article about the presentation of the Ramazzini study and quoted Belpoggi’s recommendation of “maximum precaution for children and pregnant women.”

Noting that “current standards were not set to protect children, pregnant women, and the growing numbers of infants and toddlers for whom devices have become playthings,” Davis, who is also Visiting Professor of Medicine of Hebrew University Medical Center and Guest Editor in Chief of the journal Environmental Research, added, “Current two-decade-old FCC limits were set when the average call was six minutes and costly cell phones were used by very few. These important, new, game-changing studies show that animals develop the same types of unusual cancers that are being seen in those few human epidemiological studies that have been done. In light of these results, Environmental Health Trust joins with public health experts from the states of California, Connecticut and Maryland, as well as those in France, Israel and Belgium to call on government and the private sector to carry out major ongoing public health educational campaigns to promote safer phone and personal device technology, to require and expedite fundamental changes in hardware and software to reduce exposures to RFR/microwave radiation throughout indoor and outdoor environments, and to institute major monitoring, training and research programs to identify solutions, future problems and prevention of related hazards and risks.”

“More than a dozen countries recommend reducing radiofrequency radiation exposure to children, and countries such as China, Italy, India and Russia have far more stringent cell tower radiation regulations in place when compared to the United States FCC. However, this study provides scientific evidence that governments can use to take even further action,” stated Theodora Scarato, Executive Director of EHT.

The article is Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz base station environmental emission” by L. Falcioni, L. Bua, E.Tibaldi, M. Lauriola, L. De Angelis, F. Gnudi, D. Mandrioli, M. Manservigi, F. Manservisi, I. Manzoli, I. Menghetti, R. Montella, S. Panzacchi, D. Sgargi, V. Strollo, A.Vornoli, F. Belpoggi .  It appears in Environmental Research published by Elsevier.

This study is making headline news. See examples here:

About Environmental Research

Environmental Research publishes original reports describing studies of the adverse effects of environmental agents on humans and animals. The principal aim of the journal is to assess the impact of chemicals and microbiological pollutants on human health. Both in vivo and in vitro studies, focused on defining the etiology of environmentally induced illness and to increase understanding of the mechanisms by which environmental agents cause disease, are especially welcome. Investigations on the effects of global warming/climate change on the environment and public health, as well as those focused on the effects of anthropogenic activities on climate change are also of particular interest.

About Environmental Health Trust

EHT is a scientific virtual think tank conducting cutting-edge research on environmental health risks with some of the world’s top researchers. EHT educates individuals, health professionals and communities about policy changes needed to reduce those risks. EHT maintains a regularly updated database of worldwide precautionary policies: more than a dozen countries recommend reducing wireless exposure to children.

Ramazzini Institute Resources

Link to the Ramazzini Institute Study.

Link to Media Advisory Online With Biographies for Experts on Conference Call

How To Reduce Exposure to Radiofrequency Radiation5G Factsheet

National Toxicology Program (NTP) Cell Phone Radiation

Dr. Lennart Hardell and Colleagues Comments on the NTP

Dr. Melnick Comments on the NTP

Dr. Annie Sasco Comments on the NTP/  Ramazzini Comments 

Environmental Health Trust Comments  on the NTP RF

Dr. Anthony Miller NTP Submission

Additional Resources:

Link to Infographic on Cell Phone Radiation

The National Toxicology Program Presentation on DNA Damage

 Recommendations on Reducing Cell Phone Radiation5G Factsheet

National Toxicology Program (NTP) Cell Phone Radiation

Dr. Lennart Hardell and Colleagues Comments on the NTP

Dr. Melnicks Comments on the NTP

Dr. Devra Davis/EHT Comments on the NTP

Dr. Annie Sasco Comments on the NTP

Dr. Anthony Miller Comments on the NTP 

Additional Resources:

Link to Infographic on Cell Phone Radiation

The National Toxicology Program Presentation on DNA Damage

Conference Call Bios 

Fiorella Belpoggi, PhD

Lead author of the new study will discuss how the research was designed to test cell tower base station radiation association with cancer. Dr. Belpoggi is the Director of the Ramazzini Institute Research Department and Director of the Cesare Maltoni Research Center, Bologna, Italy. Dr. Belpoggi has been invited as an expert participant to meetings on the evaluation and safety of chemicals at the European Parliament, at the Directorate General for Health and Consumer Affairs and at the European Food Safety Agency and as a temporary advisor to the World Health Organization/European Centre for Environment and Health .Ramazzini Institute investigators have completed nearly 500 cancer bioassays on more than 200 compounds. Full Bio

Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD

Dr. Hardell is a clinical and medical research doctor at the Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden. He has published more than 300 peer-reviewed scientific articles specializing in epidemiological research studying cancer risks related to exposure to environmental toxins such as Agent Orange, the herbicide glyphosate, and cell phone radiofrequency radiation. As one of the world’s leading experts on this topic, he served as an expert on the World Health Organization International Agency for the Research on Cancer EMF (Electromagnetic Fields) Working Group for the classification of radiofrequency fields in 2011. Bio here.

Ron Melnick, PhD

Dr. Melnick is a toxicologist, served 28 years a a scientist with the National Institutes of Health focused on assessing human health risks of environmental chemicals. He lead the design of the $28 Million National Toxicology Program(NTP) Studies on Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation.  Dr. Melnick can discuss comparisons between the Ramazzini Institute research and the recently released NTP data on cell phone exposure on rats and mice.

David O. Carpenter, MD

Dr. Carpenter is a public health physician and graduate of Harvard Medical School. He is the Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment, a Collaborating Centre of the World Health Organization, and former Dean of the School of Public Health at the University at Albany. He has been involved in this topic since the 1980s when he served as the Executive Secretary of the New York State Powerlines Project. He is Co-editor of the Bioinitiative Report and has testified on EMF issues to both houses of Congress and also to the President’s Cancer Panel. He has two books and numerous publications on EMF, and over 400 peer-reviewed publications on various aspects of human health and environmental exposures. Bio here

Devra Davis, MPH, PhD

Dr. Davis is an epidemiologist, former member of the National Toxicology Program Scientific Review Board is currently Visiting Professor of Medicine at The Hebrew University Hadassah Medical School, Jerusalem, Israel, and Ondokuz Mayis University Medical School, Turkey. She was Founding Director, Center for Environmental Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. President of Environmental Health Trust, she is also an award-winning scientist and author on environmental health issues. She can address the emerging studies on cell phone radiation worldwide. Full Bio

Watch Dr. Melnick present on the NTP study last year in this video.

https://ehtrust.org/worlds-largest-animal-study-on-cell-tower-radiation-confirms-cancer-link/

© 2018 Environmental Health Trust. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Environmental Health Trust ehtrust.org. Want to learn more? Sign up for the newsletter here. Link is here https://ehtrust.org/publications/newsletters/

 

Free David Wilcock Screening: Disclosure & The Fall of the Cabal

We interviewed David about what is happening within the cabal and disclosure. He shared some incredible insight that is insanely relevant to today.

So far, the response to this interview has been off the charts as people are calling it the most concise update of what's happening in our world today.

Watch the interview here.
Continue Reading

Alternative News

Don’t Buy Anyone An Amazon Echo – Not Even Yourself

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A group of hackers have successfully turned the Amazon Echo into a surveillance tool to listen in on the conversations of unknowing targets.

  • Reflect On:

    Even if hacking these devices is difficult to do, does the fact that it is possible to make you reconsider using "smart speakers" such as these? What is your privacy worth to you?

In recent years “smart speakers” are becoming popular as home tools to assist with day-to-day tasks; making phone calls, searching google and basically anything else you might use your phone for. Upon command, they wake up and complete the task given and offer a hands-free, voice-activated method to make our lives easier, so what could possibly go wrong? Well, recently a group of Chinese hackers have figured out a way to use the popular Amazon Echo as a spy device and listen in on the day-to-day conversations of targeted individuals.

This group of hackers has spent months developing a new method for essentially hijacking the Echo. While it is far from a total takeover of the smart speakers, it is, from what we know, the closest thing to a practical demonstration of how these devices can absolutely be utilized as a method of secret surveillance.

During the recent DefCon security conference, researchers Wu HuiYu and Qian Wenxiang shared their presentation called, Breaking Smart Speakers: We Are Listening To You, explaining how they hacked into an Amazon Echo and turned it into a spy bug.

Now, before we start thinking Big Brother is listening, it is important to know that this hack involved a modified version of the echo, which did have some parts swapped out. However, this doctored device was still able to hack into other, non-modified devices and it does so by connecting both the hackers Echo and a regular Echo to the same local area network, or LAN. This process allowed the hackers to turn their own modified Echo into a listening bug by relaying audio from the other Echo’s speakers without any indication that they were transmitting anything.

Although this was a difficult process, the Chinese hackers proved that it was, in fact, possible and could represent a first step towards exploiting this increasingly popular device.

So, What Does Amazon Have To Say?

Before the presentation, the researchers notified Amazon of the upcoming exploit and they pushed out some security fixes back in July when asked about the attack from Wired, the company responded by stating that, “customers do not need to take any action as their devices have been automatically updated with security fixes.” The spokesperson added that “this issue would have required a malicious actor to have physical access to a device and the ability to modify the device hardware.”

advertisement - learn more

Unfortunately, that last statement overlooks the fact that the hackers did not have access to the physical device that they were intercepting — only the LAN and anyone can get their own Echo quite easily online and in stores. So, although Amazon updated the security of these devices, it is still possible that hackers could once again, figure out a way to gain access to the device.

According to the hackers,

“After a period of practice, we can now use the manual soldering method to remove the firmware chip…from the motherboard and extract the firmware within 10 minutes, then modify the firmware within 5 minutes and [attach it] back to the device board,” they write. “The success rate is nearly 100 percent. We have used this method to create a lot of rooted Amazon Echo devices.”

Do We Need To Be Concerned?

To be able to effectively and easily hack an Echo remotely wouldn’t be easy, says Jake Williams, a former member of the NSA’s elite hacking team Tailored Access Operations. However, if spies were able to take over a device like the Echo it would make a powerful tool for surveillance because unlike a phone, it picks up sound from a room, not only right next to the device, but anywhere in earshot.

“These smart speakers are designed to pick up all the noises in the room, listen and transcribe them,” says Williams. “As a result, they’d make phenomenal listening devices if you can exploit them.”

Let’s not forget about what happened earlier this year where a couple from Portland, Oregon received a phone call from a person they knew warning them to unplug your Alexa device right now, you’re being hacked. This person had received a voice mail which contained a private message between the couple talking about hardwood floors. You can read more about that here.

I Have Nothing To Hide, Why Should I Care?

This is a common response from many people in regards to privacy issues. But this issue goes so much deeper than that. As Edward Snowden says,

“Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.”

We have a right to our privacy. If these devices can, in fact, be used as surveillance tool’s then there is a very good chance that they are being used. We have already seen a tremendous level of corruption from the NSA spying on Americans’ and even Facebook violating our rights and using messenger to listen in on our conversations. Why would we feel that these devices that are literally plugged into our homes and flat out listening to us and our “commands” couldn’t be used as a method of surveillance?

Cell phone’s alone have been proven to be able to listen in even when the phone is turned off. These smart speakers have even more capacity as they pick up sound all over the place and have a much broader range.

Should you let this stop you from getting your own Echo or similar device? Well, that’s up for you to decide, for me it’s not worth it.

Free David Wilcock Screening: Disclosure & The Fall of the Cabal

We interviewed David about what is happening within the cabal and disclosure. He shared some incredible insight that is insanely relevant to today.

So far, the response to this interview has been off the charts as people are calling it the most concise update of what's happening in our world today.

Watch the interview here.
Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

EL

Watch: Exclusive Uncut Interview With David Wilcock'Disclosure & The Fall Of The Cabal'

Enter your name and email below to watch the interview.

You have Successfully Subscribed!